Skip to main content
Glama

Compare two documented sizes

compare_objects
Read-onlyIdempotent

Compare linear dimensions or two map areas. Includes original records and a linear scale ratio.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "first": "<first>",
      "second": "<second>"
    },
    "name": "compare_objects"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
langNoen
firstYes
secondYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

B3/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare this is read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results include original records and a linear scale ratio, which is useful return context, but it does not explain input formatting, language behavior, or error conditions.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two short sentences with no wasted wording, and the main comparison purpose is front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, even though its content is incomplete in other dimensions.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given three parameters, no parameter descriptions, no output schema, and only partial return-value context, the definition is too sparse for an agent to invoke it confidently. The annotations cover safety, but the missing input semantics and language parameter create substantial gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the three parameters, but it does not. It only hints that first and second may be dimensions or areas, while the lang parameter is completely unaddressed and input formats remain unclear.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific comparison action over linear dimensions or map areas, which is clear enough to identify the tool's basic purpose. It does not differentiate this tool from sibling search/get tools, and it leaves ambiguous what the compared inputs actually are.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus search_objects or get_object, and it names no alternatives or exclusions. At most it implies a use case, which is below the threshold for clear usage guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources